LONDON ROAD DEATHS

[RobC]

I have been referring to total cycling deaths & have been for a number of posts not just London, thus the mileages are national.

Fair enough - but national figures are irrelevant when the discussion is about cycle deaths in London. I firmly believe that - despite these tragic deaths - cycling in London is safer than it's been in a long time. Granted this is my anecdotal experience, which is why I'm interested in stats of KSIs/cycle mile in London to see whether my instinct is correct or not.

[The utility cyclist]

I have been referring to total cycling deaths & have been for a number of posts not just London, thus the mileages are national.

Fair enough - but national figures are irrelevant when the discussion is about cycle deaths in London. I firmly believe that - despite these tragic deaths - cycling in London is safer than it's been in a long time. Granted this is my anecdotal experience, which is why I'm interested in stats of KSIs/cycle mile in London to see whether my instinct is correct or not.

explain how deaths in London are irrelevant to the total national figure? Anecdote is just that and is meaningless without facts.

[horizon]

However, I am ashamed to say that I also see a fair few cyclists blatantly ignoring the rules of the road and proving to be a danger to themselves and those around them.

I was cycling in London (daylight and night-time, off-peak and rush hour, main road and back streets) at the end of last month. What I really appreciated were the cyclists who "blatantly ignored the rules of the road". This meant that drivers could not predict what would happen next, what the cyclist might do or where a cyclist might suddenly appear from. They therefore had to slow down, watch out and give way. I felt much safer as a consequence. I tend to stick to the rules when cycling but I'm grateful to those who don't.

[reohn2]

However, I am ashamed to say that I also see a fair few cyclists blatantly ignoring the rules of the road and proving to be a danger to themselves and those around them.

I was cycling in London (daylight and night-time, off-peak and rush hour, main road and back streets) at the end of last month. What I really appreciated were the cyclists who "blatantly ignored the rules of the road". This meant that drivers could not predict what would happen next, what the cyclist might do or where a cyclist might suddenly appear from. They therefore had to slow down, watch out and give way. I felt much safer as a consequence. I tend to stick to the rules when cycling but I'm grateful to those who don't.

The problems begin when those cyclists who "blatantly ignored the rules of the road" get into their cars

[bovlomov]

I was cycling in London (daylight and night-time, off-peak and rush hour, main road and back streets) at the end of last month. What I really appreciated were the cyclists who "blatantly ignored the rules of the road". This meant that drivers could not predict what would happen next, what the cyclist might do or where a cyclist might suddenly appear from. They therefore had to slow down, watch out and give way. I felt much safer as a consequence. I tend to stick to the rules when cycling but I'm grateful to those who don't.

I believe you have encapsulated the reasons for the remarkable, and unexpected, safety record of the London bike hire scheme. It's not so different from Hans Mondeman's 'shared space' concept. Predictability breeds recklessness, and unpredictability breeds caution.

[RobC]

explain how deaths in London are irrelevant to the total national figure? Anecdote is just that and is meaningless without facts.

They're irrelevant in that London has seen a surge in the popularity of cycling, contrary to the picture in the rest of the country. So it's pointless to use uk-wide figures in a discussion about cycling in London - which is what this thread is. It's sadly likely that with a massive increase of cyclists on the roads, more of them will become victims of bad driving in London - however as long as the rate of cyclists injured in London per cycle-mile does not increase, then one cannot actually say that cycling (in London) is becoming more dangerous.

This article explains things rather well, and contains facts: http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/the-ut ... don/019317

Finally it is relevant to the rest of the country because it shows that more cycling does not equal greater risk of injury, therefore weight in numbers does work to improve cycle safety!

[reohn2]

FWIW,if cycling infrastructure can be got right in the Capital city and shown to be a better way of everyday transport,then it'll be much easier to convince the rest of the country that there is a better way of living in a city environment that isn't polluted with ICE fumes,is quieter and more relaxed.
In short like the NL model
As I see it the people standing in the way of that happening are those who simply can't see any other way outside the present mess that UK towns and cities are in.